Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I don't mind the debate - I've had an iPhone since the 3GS but was and am seriously looking at switching away for various reasons. The debate should be based on fact though, and the facts are that Apple doesn't have a dearth of people moving off other platforms and over to its own.

Yes... Don't see your point? The gearbox is necessary so that the motor operates near peak efficiency as often as possible. Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch

the whole "max torque from 0 rpm" phrase that is thrown around is quite misleading. While true that a motor exerts its maximum torque at zero rpm (and drops linearly as rpm increases), it also has the worst efficiency. maximum power draw (it's a short circuit!) and minimum power output (it's not moving is it?). peak efficiency is at a specific rpm, thus a gearbox is needed *for efficiency*.

If his garbage causes you take take a different flow of execution, however, that provides him a way to reach bugs in the little-used parts of your code.

The different flow of execution triggered by an overflow trap should almost always be a simple call to "abort()". At this point, your program has already failed and should be stopped.

I disagree with your premise. Garbage input values should be checked and rejected in software before the overflow ever occurs. The hardware overflow check should be a last resort to enforce this at every instruction step, and in the worst case it converts privilege exploits into less serious DOS attacks.

Allowing "garbage output" as you propose just creates more opportunities for attacks when that output gets consumed somewhere.